Criminal; Disqualification of Trial Judge; Whether Case Should be Remanded
to Trial Court for Hearing on Whether the Trial Judge Actively Participated in
Pretrial Negotiations. The defendant was convicted of fourth degree
sexual assault. On appeal to the Appellate Court (109 Conn. App. 611), the
defendant claimed that the trial judge improperly denied his motion to
disqualify the judge from presiding over the defendant's criminal trial. In
his motion, the defendant alleged, among other things, that the trial judge had
actively participated in plea negotiations prior to trial. Specifically, the
defendant claimed that the trial judge pressured and attempted to coerce him into
accepting the state's proposal that he waive his right to a trial and accept
accelerated rehabilitation. The Appellate Court's review of the transcript
uncovered only a few references by the trial judge to accelerated
rehabilitation. In those portions of the transcript, the trial judge expressed
to the parties his belief that the defendant was, at that time, supposed to
make his decision as to whether to apply for accelerated rehabilitation or go
to trial. When told by the defendant's counsel that the defendant had opted to
go to trial, the trial judge explained to counsel that, once the trial started,
he would not entertain an application for accelerated rehabilitation. The
Appellate Court found that it would take a tortured reading of the transcript
to conclude that the discussion between the trial judge and the parties
amounted to a plea negotiation. Determining that it did not appear from the record
that the trial judge had participated in any plea negotiations, the Appellate
Court affirmed the defendant's conviction. In this appeal, the Supreme Court
will determine whether the Appellate Court improperly affirmed the defendant's
conviction without first remanding the case to the trial court for a hearing on
the question of whether the trial judge had actively participated in pretrial
negotiations.